Tracking The Florida Health Care Lawsuit

October 01, 2010 4:23 pm ET

The passage of the Affordable Care Act marked the beginning of a new era in consumer protections and accessibility to quality, affordable health care. But once signed into law, twenty states filed suit against the federal government. Bill McCollum, Republican Attorney General of Florida and primary plaintiff, vowed to file a lawsuit fighting the bill's implementation in Florida, calling it "an egregious violation of individual liberty and limited government." McCollum and the other Attorneys General, Governors, and state representatives named in the lawsuit are attempting to overturn over two hundred years of precedent ruling in favor of federal law preempting state law.

Lawsuit Overview

The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act was signed into law on March 23, 2010 and twenty (20)
states filed suit against the U.S.
government.

Key Players

Plaintiffs:

Florida (Bill McCollum, Attorney General)

Alabama (Troy King, Attorney General)

Alaska (Daniel Sullivan, Attorney General)

Arizona (Janice Brewer, Governor)

Colorado (John W. Suthers, Attorney
General)

Georgia
(Sonny Perdue, Governor)

Idaho (Lawrence
G. Wasden, Attorney General)

Indiana
(Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General)

Louisiana (James D. "Buddy" Caldwell,
Attorney General)

Michigan (Michael Cox, Attorney General)

Mississippi (Haley Barbour, Governor)

Nebraska (Jon Bruning, Attorney General)

Nevada (Jim Gibbons, Governor)

North Dakota (Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney
General)

Pennsylvania (Thomas Corbett, Jr., Attorney
General)

South Carolina (Henry McMaster, Attorney General)

South Dakota (Marty J. Jackley, Attorney
General)

Texas (Greg Abbott, Attorney General)

Utah (Mark Shurtleff, Attorney General)

Washington
(Robert McKenna, Attorney General)

National
Federation of Independent Business (Non-profit)

Kaj
Ahlburg (individual)

Mary
Brown (individual)

Defendants:

United
States Department of Health and Human Services

Kathleen
Sebelius, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human
Services

United
States Department of Treasury

Timothy
Geithner, Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury

United
States Department of Labor

Hilda
L. Solis, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor

Main Arguments and
Claims of the States (Plaintiffs)

Individual Mandate Is Unprecedented
And Unconstitutional. The plaintiffs claim that the individual mandate forces them to
purchase insurance, which they assert Congress has never done before and lacks
the constitutional authority to do.

The Federal Government Is Coercing
States Via Medicaid and Healthcare Insurance. The plaintiffs also claim that the
federal government is "using Medicaid to reach universal healthcare coverage
goals and forcing fundamental changes in the nature and scope of the Medicaid
program upon the States... and requiring plaintiff states to carry out the
insurance mandates," which they feel amounts to coercion.

Interference With State
Sovereignty. By
invoking the Tenth Amendment, the States claim that the federal government is
violating the principles of federalism and dual sovereignty (state and federal
government) — in other words stepping on the states' toes in enacting the
mandates.

The Department Of Justice Filed A Motion To Dismiss On June 16, 2010

On June 16, the Department of
Justice, which handles all lawsuits against the United States and its agencies,
filed a Motion To Dismiss in an attempt to get the states' complaint tossed out
of court.

Overview of Motion to
Dismiss:

Amendments To Medicaid Fall Within
Congress' Spending Power. The government argued that state participation in Medicaid is voluntary
and states can either accept funds with the conditions imposed by Congress or
choose not to accept them, which is a major function of Congress' spending
power.

No 10th Amendment
Violations. The
government argues that they are not commanding States to enact or enforce
federal regulatory programs, but they are giving the states the choice of
regulating activity according to federal standards or having state law
pre-empted by federal regulation (the federal law reigns supreme over state
law).

The States Do Not Have Standing To
Bring This Lawsuit. In
order to assert a constitutional claim, the plaintiffs must have "standing" by
demonstrating that there will be "imminent harm" caused to the states. Since the regulations have not been fully
implemented, the government contends that the states failed to demonstrate "imminent
harm."

The Coverage Provision Is
Constitutional. Congress
has the right to regulate any activity within the channels of interstate
commerce. The government argues that
economic decisions and the way health care services are paid for are within the
channels of interstate commerce. If the
court agrees, then the government would only need to show a rational basis
relating to a legitimate government interest in order for the legislation to be
upheld.

What Happens Next...?

Possible Outcomes:

Motions For Summary Judgment. The first trial move will be for
both the Plaintiffs and Defendants to bring Motions for Summary Judgment. This
means that both sides will assert that the judge should rule for them based on
the evidence that they have presented before the trial has taken place.

Judge Rules On Behalf Of The
States. If the
judge finds in favor of the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment this means
that the states have won their claim and that the entire bill is deemed
unconstitutional putting the government back to square one in creating new
legislation.

Judge Rules On Behalf Of The
Government. If the
judge rules in favor of the Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment, this means
the states lose and their lawsuit gets thrown out.

Motions Denied, Case Will Proceed
To Trial. If the
judge denies both Motions For Summary Judgment then the case will continue to
trial.

Appealing The Ruling. More than likely both sides will
appeal rulings that are against their favor, if the case proceeds to trial. Appeals take many years because the case must
first go through the United
States Court of Appeals (11th
District) and then the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari to make a final
determination on the issue. It could
take several years before the case reaches the Supreme Court, and there is a
final ruling on whether the law is constitutional.

How Does The Florida
Lawsuit Relate To The Virginia Lawsuit?

Virginia has also filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
government, challenging the constitutionality of the health care law. The major differences between the Florida and Virginia
lawsuits are the number of plaintiffs and that Virginia
only raises one count (the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate)
against the federal government, while Florida
is raising several counts, as described above.

Key Players:

Plaintiff: Kenneth
Cuccinelli II, Attorney General of Virginia

Defendant: Kathleen
Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

Summary:

Ken
Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia, filed his complaint with the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 23,
2010.

The
Complaint raised the following argument:

Commonwealth of Virginia is not interstate commerce so the
government does not have the right to regulate it and impose the individual
mandate

Department of Health and Human Services files a Motion To Dismiss on May 24, 2010 citing two major arguments:

The
court did not have jurisdiction to decide the case

The
Attorney General's complaint did not state a claim upon which relief can be
granted

Judge
Henry Hudson decides to deny the motion to dismiss and allow the state to
proceed with its lawsuit on August 2, 2010.

Both
sides filed Motions for Summary Judgment on September 23, 2010.

Final
decisions will be made about the Summary Judgment Motions on October 18,
2010.